Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Boddu Arvind Kumar

DRT9 Mar 2026OA/972/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicants request for recovery of a loan amount Rs. 37,76,083/- with interest and costs from the Defendants who remained ex-parte. The court held the Defendants liable for the claim and mortgage property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 37,76,083/- with 7.05% p.a. interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgage property; recovery certificate issued.

Bank of Baroda versus Boddu Arvind Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM. L.LB.^{(HONS.), M.A,}

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINALAPPLICATION No: 972 OF 2025

¶5

BANK OF BARODA, Hitech City Branch, Module A3, Q2, 1st Floor, Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, Telangana-500081, Rep. by its Asst. General Manager

¶6

..,..Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Boddu Arvind Kumar,

¶9

S/o Boddu Rajalingam, Aged about 49^years, OCC: Private, R/o Flat No. 106, AV Chandana Heights, Sri Sai Nagar, Beside KLM Fashion^{Mall Lane,} Boduppal, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana-500098

¶10

Boddu Suma,

¶11

Wo^{BodduArvindKumar,} Aged about 40^years, OCC: Private Service, R/o Flat No. 106, AV Chandana Heights, Srl Sai Nagar, Sai Nagar, Beside KLM Fashion^{Mall Lane,Lane,} Boduppal,-Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana-500098

¶12

Srl Sai Nagar, Sai Nagar, Beside KLM Fashion^{Mall Lane,Lane,} .---.-\ Boduppal,-Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana-500098 ..Defendants \ Counsel for the Applicant :^{Mr. G. Venkat Sri} Maithreya I Counsetforthe Defendants : ex-Oarte/7fu-(1\ / )//,/, t/ q.Q, " r')

¶13

oA.NO.972l202s

¶14

:: ORDER ::

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs, 37,76,083/- with future interest @10^15olo^p.a. from L4.10.2025 till the date of realization along with costs and, in default, sale of OA mortgage^property.

¶16

Summon served on Defendants 1 & 2 through^{paper publication} and were set exparte on 06.03.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Ms. Mahesh Chandra Jindal, Asst. General Manager, as AW-1 and marked B documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.B.

¶18

Heard ex-parte arguments from the Ld. Counsel of the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA mortgage property?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-pafte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.8 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶22

In the result, the present Original Application No.972/2O25 is auowed as under:

¶23

On%K-s'$

¶24

oA.NO.972l2OZ5

¶25

i) The Defendants 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 37,76,083/- with future interest @7.05o/o^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶26

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property as described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶27

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the pafties concerned.

¶32

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by this the 9th Day of March, 2026).

¶33

KOTHE)

Bank of Baroda v. Boddu Arvind Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Boddu Arvind Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri Jagannath Industries

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Pampari Ashwini

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Bachalakura Raveenender

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri. Priyanth Rao Nallapally

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Pidathala Ramadasu

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Pidathala Maheswari